Ancient Egyptian has some distinctive features separating it from modern languages and also from classical languages, such as Latin.
Ancient Egyptian was completely lost and there was no continuous tradition of the teaching its grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation. In its more than 4000 years of history, grammatical rules and words changed over time and the Ancient Egyptian language is classified into four major phases, namely Old Egyptian, Middle Egyptian, Late Egyptian and Coptic.1 The use of a previous phase of the Ancient Egyptian language in a later period can be observed throughout Egyptian history such on the walls of Hatschepsut's temple in the Expedition to Punt written primarily in Middle Egyptian however the use of old Egyptian forms and words can be seen in the speech of Amun.2 1J. P. Allen, Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphics (Cambrdige, 2000), 1.2, p.1; A. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar: Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs, 3rd Edition (Oxford, 1927), §3, p. 52 E. Naville, Deir el Bahari III (London, 1898), pl. LXXXIV, LXXV
Prior art translators work on the assumption that a language's grammar is given and known. A translation method for Ancient Egyptian has to recognize the pertinent time period/phase with its characteristic features in order to interpret the text correctly, and to be able to account for older forms of the language as mentioned above and to be able to provide possible translations for debateable issues.
Ancient Egyptian was written using different scripts namely Hieroglyphics, Hieratic, Demotic and ‘Coptic’ and in the Graeco-Roman period all three were in use contemporaneously.3 Hieroglyphics and Hieratic exhibit characteristics, which pose difficulties in the interpretation of Egyptian texts: Firstly, the use of ‘Summary writings’ in Egyptian texts, such as the omission of semi-vowels such as H14, i and H2, w in the marking of grammatical endings. As explained by Gardiner the word H3 Ddw means ‘speaking’ and is a masculine participle but is often written as H4, Dd which corresponds to the infinitive ‘to say’.5 3 Gardiner (1927), §8, p. 7; §4, p. 54 References H1, H2, . . . refer to the hieroglyphic symbols in FIG. 1a 5 Gardiner (1927), §20, p. 29
This peculiarity reveals itself further, for example, in attempting to distinguish between an imperfect active participle, H5 sDm that may or may not have a H2 as an ending and if so would in fact be its passive form H6 sDm.w. As stated by Ockinga the singular ending -w is seldom written in active forms and occasionally in the passive forms.6 6 B. Ockinga, A Concise Grammar of Middle Egyptian (Mainz, 1998), §99, p. 61
As a mere illustrative example, let us just explore the difficulty presented when we attempt to distinguish between a perfective participle and the imperfective participle using a common and strong verb sDm that we just spoke about. In fact a perfective active participle written H5 sDm may look exactly like its imperfective counterpart and furthermore its passive written H6 or H5 sDm.w could in fact be an imperfective participle active, passive, perfective active or passive.7 The Egyptians more often than not wrote using summary writings and in doing so ‘grammatical distinctions are often obliterated and become a mere matter of inference’.8 7 Ockinga (1998), §98ff8 Gardiner (1927), §20, p. 29
Tense and mood in Ancient Egyptian are not clearly marked and the omission of vowels in writings has obliterated the differences between verb forms. An example would be H7 wbn ra m p.t, which could mean depending on context: The sun rises in the sky; the sun rose in the sky; the sun will rise in the sky; when the sun rises in the sky; when the sun rose in the sky; if the sun rises in the sky; let the sun rise in the sky; that the sun may rise in the sky.9 Prior art translators are not designed to deal with indeterminate results due to summary writings. 9 Gardiner (1927), §30, p. 36
The correct grammatical interpretation (mainly but not exclusively) of verbs regularly depends on grammatical elements in other sentences and their contextual elements. Therefore, a more precise grammatical analysis has to embody parameters from previous (and on some occasions from following) sentences. Hence, this document will distinguish between intra- and inter-sentence grammar issues. Prior art translators are not able to analyse grammatical issues beyond sentences.
One and the same hieroglyphic symbol can play several roles in a word, namely it can represent a phonetic value (eg. unilateral, bi- or triliteral), an idiogram/logogram or a determinative.10 The stem of a word may be decomposed into separate parts, that of its phonetic value and that of its determinative (optional). Ideograms have phonetic values, but may also be used as determinatives, when the word represented by the ideogram is phonetically spelt out. Hence, an ideogram may also have a determinative function. Prior art translators do not address these issues. 10 Ockinga (1998), §3ff
A word in ancient Egyptian can be written iconically; phonetically; or phonetically and iconically. Determinatives may be added to the phonetic spelling/s of a word or replace other possible determinative(s) in order to confer a contextual or semantic11 meaning and act as a possible ambiguity dispeller, cancelling out other phonetic possibilities for a word.12 The use of determinatives in this way enabled the ancient Egyptians to add a quasi-second layer to the spelling/s of a word giving the reader through the use of determinatives contextual information. The ancient Egyptian “collective mind”—a term coined by Goldwasser in describing the deep structure of world classification of the Egyptian culture13—is reflected in the use of the determinative, which can be categorized as representing the Ancient Egyptian conceptual understanding of their world. This will be referred to as the ‘conceptual framework,’ in this document, which is in turn mapped onto the English language's conceptual framework in order to give us an accurate contextual understanding of the words written. A contextually accurate translation of the text requires that this conceptual layer be interpreted correctly as well. 11 Loprieno (1995), 1312 Goldwasser (1995), 4313 Goldwasser (1999), p. 49; ‘Issues in categorization with which we are primarily concerned have to do with explaining the categories found in a culture and coded by the language of that culture at a particular point in time.’ (cf. E. Rosch, Principles of Categorization; E. Rosch and B. B. Lloyd (ed.), Cognition and Categorization (Hillsdale, 1978), p. 28)
Not only may determinatives influence the contextual interpretation of the word itself, but the determinative used in the head parameter of a phrase may influence the correct interpretation of the constituent and vice versa.
An example of where the constituent would influence the contextual meaning is that of a prepositional phrase, where the constituent, perhaps a noun, would influence its head, the preposition and therefore determine the correct translation of the phrase.
It also applies to several layers of head-constituent relationships. Lets look at a simple Egyptian phrase (Note transliterations were taken from Faulkner (1999)) such as iw iri.n=i ir.t Hbs, which literally translates to ‘I made an overseer of the clothing’. This phrase is semantically incorrect because what is meant is—‘I became an overseer of the clothing’.14 There are three factors, which play a role in the semantic interpretation of this sentence, the verb, the object and subject. In order to correctly interpret this sentence, these three elements should be conceptually mapped to the corresponding translated language in order to attain a semantically correct interpretation. For a more comprehensive example, see FIG. 6c. 14 R. Anthes (ed,), Die Felseninschriften von Hatnub (Leipzig, 1928), Die Graffiti aus dem 4. Jahre NHrj's I, p 32f
Conceptual categories of words may also be indicated by the choice of phonetic symbols made by the scribe. The Egyptian scribe may have theoretically had a certain number of symbols at his disposal to express a certain phonetic combination. For example, the word smA “to unite” or “to assemble” could theoretically be phonetically represented as H8 (composed of uniliterals s, m and A only), H9, H10, H11 or H12, H13, H14 and H15. Also the choice of phonetic symbols may confer a semantic meaning, but this area is still subject to research.
Summarizing, a translator for Ancient Egyptian has to be able to analyse the conceptual framework represented by the determinatives (and by the choice of phonetic symbols as well) not only in the interpretation of individual words but also in the interpretation of sentences and texts as a whole:
There are no spaces between words or punctuation (in some cases red dots were inserted referring to stitch divisions in Egyptian texts in order to facilitate oral reading, but are not considered verse points, but rather where the scribe should pause. Due to their considerable flexibility it is difficult to deduce clear rules for their placement).15 Often relative or final subordinate clauses may be identical in form as main clauses in a sentence and in many cases are merely distinguishable due to context rather than syntax.16 In this way due to the frequent omission of form endings it is essential to not only syntactically distinguish the role a word plays in a sentence but contextually in order to ascertain at times where a sentence begins and ends. 15 Fox (1985), 616 Allen (2000), 12.11, p. 136
Hieratic is generally written horizontally from right to left, but was also written vertically reading top down, from right to left.17 Hieroglyphics can be written vertically from right to left or left to right as well as horizontally reading top down either right to left or left to right depending on the way in which the symbols are facing.18 However, hieroglyphics can also be found written in retrograde such as in the Book of Gates19 or in Hatschepsut's Expedition to Punt. An example of retrograde writing from the Expedition to Punt would be: 17 G. Möller, Hieratische Lesestücke für den Akademischen Gebrauch: Erstes Heft (Leipzig, 1909)18 Ockinga (1998), §119 Hornung (1999a), 32
Row 1: ‘for the benefit of Life, Prosperity [and] Health of Her Majesty’; Row 2: ‘for Hathor, mistress of Punt’; Row 3: ‘for his mother ship after ship’; Row 4: ‘the ships with tributes’; Row 5: ‘Unloading’. The hieroglyphics face dictates reading direction of text in the direction from Row 1 to 5 but should be read from Row 5 to Row 1.20 Prior art translators are not able to detect and handle retrograde writing. 20 E. Naville, Deir el Bahari III (London, 1898), pl. LXXII
The Ancient Egyptian scribe's aim according to Hannig is that hieroglyphics was written to optimally make use of the space available in order to produce an aesthetically pleasing hieroglyphic cluster of symbols or to optimally represent the script binding it with its pictorial representation.21 Hieroglyphic signs may also be transposed that is for example a small sign such as H16 may be placed under the breast of a bird H17 even when it should be read H18. There are other tendencies that also fall under this category.22 Hence, the order of symbols as it appears in the text may not necessarily be the order in which it is transliterated and then interpreted (transposition). 21 Hannig (1995), LV22 Gardiner (1927), §56, p. 51
Symbols forming a word are grouped (for an example, see FIG. 1a); the group patterns for one and the same word may vary substantially (group pattern variation).
Symbols are frequently left out for presumably aesthetic reasons or perhaps due to changes in the pronunciation of a word (omission).
One and the same word may appear in several different symbol combinations and determinatives indicating the correct interpretation of a word may be left out or changed (word variations).
Group pattern variations, transpositions, omissions and word variations may occur in a word simultaneously and they may depend on factors such as the period or type of text.
Late-period texts, such in the Ptolemaic period, introduce a large number of new symbols that led to further variations in the spellings of words.
In Ancient Egyptian complex symbols may be depicted by a quasi wildcard symbol such as H19 (symbol Z5) and therefore in order to correctly translate the word one would need to search for the correct rendering of the Egyptian word. For example the word H20, msi ‘to give birth’ is sometimes written H21.23 23 Ockinga (1998), §10b
Words in ancient Egyptian may be written in several different ways. For example the verb ‘to protect’ may be written H22, H23 or H2424 transliterated as xwj and the order in which the symbols may be found may also vary due to aesthetic reasons. The transliteration of Egyptian words most often does not reflect a one to one relationship to its hieroglyphic phonetic transcription and in many cases hieroglyphic dictionaries render various transliterations for a particular word such as the preposition H25 that can be transliterated as xnt or xntj.25 Furthermore a hieroglyph may have several phonetic transliterations for example the symbol H26 (Aa13) may be transliterated as jm, m or gs26 and complicating the problem further a particular symbol may represent the short form for several different words such as the symbol H27 (T14) which is the short form for THnw meaning Libya or nHsj meaning Nubians with only the phonetic complements, if written, to assist in deciphering the correct phonetic value of the symbol and hence its meaning. This same symbol however can also replace H28 (Aa26), H29 (M3), H30 (P11), H31 (T13) and H32 (D50) which may have their own phonetic values as well as logogram properties and functions as determinatives in different words.27 One should not expect to find the same word spelt the same way in every text or even in the same text.28 It is therefore essential for a translator to record various attested spellings of a word and to note in which context, period, text etc. a word was found. Please note that in this section words and their transliterations were taken from Hannig (1995). 24 Hannig (1995), 58825 Hannig (1995), 60726 Hannig (1995), 110227 Hannig (1995), 108328 Allen (2000), 3.6, p. 29
Word variations present a number of problems, two of which are explained below: (a) They make it difficult to distinguish whether a new word is merely another variation or a scribal error; (b) to predict various forms of a particular word. For example if a verb is known only in 3rd person singular, we cannot with certain accuracy predict all forms in which the word could occur in Egyptian texts. Therefore a translator must be flexible enough to cater for word variations and the problems associated with them. Prior-art translators do not work with attestations of words and grammatical constructs (the corpus of a modern language is typically known), and can therefore not deal with such contingencies.
Input devices for prior art translators work with deterministic text entry, the text symbols to be translated are discernible and known. This is frequently not the case in Ancient Egyptian. Text passages may be seriously damaged where the remains of a symbol may be visually interpreted in several alternative ways, which later have to be assessed to find the correct matching symbol/s. Handwritten texts may show substantial idiosyncrasies in the scribe's handwriting, which also leaves symbol recognition open to ambiguity, which can only be resolved in a broader context. Frequently, symbols are not discernible at all and the modern reader can identify only stroke patterns. This issue particularly applies to Hieratic and Demotic script. In addition, there may be systematic scribal errors in the forming of certain symbols.
Many of the problems described above also apply to an Ancient Egyptian dictionary: [04]-[07] Summary writing, context-specific interpretation of individual words according to the symbols used [09]-[14], the variations and ambiguity described in [18]-[25], the issue of attestations of particular spellings and form variants [26] and the input device [27].
Terminology Used
Let us first clarify some terms:
The invention refers to texts in Hieroglyphics, Hieratic and Demotic, in the following referred to as “(Egyptian) script”. Monumental inscriptions were written in Hieroglyphic script, whereas most common everyday texts, such as letters, were written with ink and a reed brush on papyrus, wood, leather, etc. Various forms of cursive writing styles were developed: (i) cursive hieroglyphs, which follow the monumental hieroglyphs relatively closely, (ii) Hieratic script, which was used for most handwritten communication and which eventually developed into (iii) Demotic script in the Late Period as an even more cursive form.29 29 Allen (2000), p. 6f
There are several writing styles of Hieratic/Demotic, for example depending on the period, source and/or the area. Generally, each Hieratic and Demotic symbol corresponds to one Hieroglyphic symbol, but there are “ligatures”, where, for example, one Hieratic symbol corresponds to several Hieroglyphic symbols in particular pattern formations.30 30 G. Möller, Hieratische Paläographie: Die Aegyptische Buchschrift In Ihrer Entwicklung von der Fünften Dynastie Bis Zur Römischen Kaiserzeit, Erster Band (Leipzig, 1909), 68ff
The symbols of Egyptian script are arranged in “group patterns”, each of which consists of one or several rectangular areas for the glyphs referred to as “placeholders”. The placeholders within a group pattern are numbered thereby defining the sequence of symbols. The example in FIG. 1a consists of 5 group patterns of which G1 and G2 belong to Type 1 that has only one placeholder, C belongs to Type 2 with a certain arrangement of 5 placeholders (with two alternative sequences of placeholders indicated by n/n), G4 and G5 belong to Types 3 and 4 with arrangements of 3 and 4 placeholders, resp. The order of the placeholders is then established by the sequence of group patterns and the sequence of placeholders within the patterns, eg. in FIG. 1, G1-1, G2-1, G3-1, G3-2, G3-3, . . . 31 Placeholders can be of varying size and arrangement. 31 Example from Bergmann (1885), 4; for further examples and explanations cf. Gardiner (1927), §16, p. 25f.
The group patterns thereby form words and sentences. A larger text is often subdivided into text registers (in the following referred to as “text portions” to avoid confusion with the A2 Vector Path Registers which are part of the invention disclosed herein).